Appeal No. 95-2768
Application 08/019,700
position by a friction-fit therewith.?3
We do not consider that claim 29 would have been obvious
over the combination of Kamaya with either Piretti or Blackburn.
In the bicycle rack shown in Piretti, the cradle 250 is a unitary
structure which supports several bicycles and essentially covers
the entire supporting arm 252. In our view, it would not have
been obvious to substitute therefor the individual supports
(cradles) 3 of Kamaya. As for Blackburn, the cradles (brackets)
100 are held in place on the supporting arms 60,62 by bolts 112
which pass through holes 110 in the brackets and are threaded
into holes 114 in the arms. Thus, it does not appear that
Blackburn’s cradles are rotatable about the arms or held in
position by a friction-fit, and one of ordinary skill would not
have been motivated to substitute Kamaya’s supports 3 for them,
since one would thereby lose the specific orientation of each
bracket of the Blackburn carrier.
Rejection Under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 28 to 30 are rejected
3 Although we have rejected claims 28 to 30, infra, pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.196(b) on the ground that there is no written description of the claimed
rotatability limitation, that limitation cannot be ignored in evaluating the
patentability of the claims over prior art. Ex parte Pearson, 230 USPQ 711, 712
(BPAI 1985), aff’d mem., 795 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007